Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.0 is a tool developed by the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and Natural England to measure and account for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or changes in land management. This metric is crucial for ensuring that new developments achieve Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), meaning they leave the natural environment in a better state than before.
The metric is used throughout the planning and development process to ensure that biodiversity gains are considered and achieved.
It supports the legal requirement under the Environment Bill for developments to achieve at least a 10% net gain in biodiversity.
Implementation and Benefits
Developers use the metric to plan and demonstrate how their projects will achieve BNG, either through on-site improvements or off-site compensatory measures.
Ecologists utilize the metric for accurate biodiversity assessments and to guide habitat management decisions.
Local Planning Authorities ensure compliance with BNG requirements by incorporating the metric into their planning processes.
By providing a standardised, transparent method for measuring biodiversity, the Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.0 plays a critical role in enhancing environmental sustainability in urban and rural development.
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is a principle and practice within environmental management and planning aimed at ensuring that development projects leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was before. This concept focuses on enhancing habitats and ecosystems, thereby increasing biodiversity rather than just mitigating harm.
Baseline Assessment: Conducting an initial assessment to understand the existing biodiversity and ecological value of a site before development.
Quantitative Metrics: Using standardized metrics to measure biodiversity losses and gains. In the UK, the Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.0 is often used for this purpose.
Community and Expert Involvement: Engaging local communities, ecologists, and other stakeholders in the planning and implementation process to ensure the measures are appropriate and effective.
Improves quality of life by creating green spaces and promoting well-being.
Implementation in Policy
Many countries are integrating BNG into their planning policies. For example, in the UK, the Environment Act 2021 mandates that new developments must deliver at least a 10% net gain in biodiversity, calculated using the Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.0.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are a collection of water management practices designed to mitigate the adverse effects of urban stormwater runoff and promote the natural water cycle. The primary objectives of SuDS are to manage surface water sustainably, enhance water quality, and provide amenity and biodiversity benefits.
SuDS aim to manage surface water runoff close to where it falls and mimic natural drainage as closely as possible. This involves techniques such as infiltration, storage, and slow release of water to reduce flood risk.
By filtering pollutants from runoff, SuDS help to improve the quality of water entering rivers, lakes, and other water bodies. This can be achieved through natural filtration processes involving vegetation and soil.
SuDS can create attractive environments and habitats for wildlife. Features such as green roofs, ponds, wetlands, and swales can enhance the local environment, providing recreational spaces and supporting biodiversity.
In many local planning authorities, including East Hampshire District Council (EHDC), certain types of planning applications are indeed referred to the Planning Committee rather than being decided by planning officers under delegated powers.
This typically includes larger and more controversial developments, such as those that are outside settlement boundaries or involve a significant number of new houses. Here’s how this works:
Criteria for Referring Applications to the Planning Committee
Large Developments: Applications involving a significant number of new houses (such as over 50) are often referred to the Planning Committee due to their potential impact on the local area.
Outside Settlement Boundaries: Developments proposed outside the designated settlement boundaries are likely to be scrutinized more closely, especially if they involve substantial construction, as these areas are usually protected by local planning policies to control urban sprawl and preserve the character of the countryside.
High Public Interest: Applications that generate a large number of public comments or objections are more likely to be considered by the Planning Committee.
Controversial Developments: Projects that are contentious or have significant local opposition may also be referred to the Committee to ensure a transparent decision-making process.
Policy Deviations: Proposals that do not fully comply with local or national planning policies may require Committee consideration to carefully weigh the benefits and impacts.
Sensitive Areas: Developments affecting sensitive areas such as green belts, conservation areas, or sites with environmental or historical significance are typically referred to the Committee.
Preparation: The planning officers prepare a report for the Planning Committee, summarizing the application, relevant policies, consultation responses, public comments, and a recommendation.
Publication: The agenda for the Committee meeting, including the report and recommendations, is published in advance.
Presentation: The planning officer presents the report and recommendation.
Public Input: Registered speakers present their comments.
Debate and Decision: Councillors debate the application and make a decision by voting.
Delegated Powers
Routine Applications: Smaller and less controversial applications are often decided by planning officers under delegated powers to streamline the process.
Criteria for Delegation: The criteria for delegation and Committee referral are typically set out in the Council’s Constitution or Scheme of Delegation.
Specific Policy for EHDC
For East Hampshire District Council, the specific criteria for referring applications to the Planning Committee can be found in their local planning policies and procedural documents. It is common for larger developments, especially those outside settlement boundaries and involving a significant number of houses, to be referred to the Planning Committee.
Conclusion
In summary, applications for developments over 50 houses or those outside settlement boundaries are typically referred to the Planning Committee rather than being decided by planning officers under delegated powers due to their potential impact and the level of public interest.
In the current state of the housing market, developers often prioritise maximising their profits over the needs and well-being of local communities. This approach is not beneficial for the region. It drains resources from certain locations, putting undue pressure on local infrastructure and services. Communities are left to deal with increased traffic congestion, inadequate public services, and environmental degradation. The rapid population growth in Medstead, for example, has resulted in an over 40% increase in the period from 2011-2021 due to piecemeal developments, exacerbating these issues.
The Need for a Balanced Approach
Developers are primarily focused on achieving the highest possible returns on their investments, often at the expense of the local communities they are building in. This has led to a scenario where the competition is not for creating the best living environments but for maximising profits. This imbalance needs to be addressed to ensure sustainable development that benefits everyone involved.
The Role of Section 106
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is a powerful tool that local authorities can use to require developers to mitigate the impacts of their developments. These agreements, also known as planning obligations, can be used to secure contributions towards local infrastructure, affordable housing, and other community benefits.
Introducing a Profit Cap
One innovative approach to ensure fairness and reinvestment into local communities is to introduce a profit cap for developers. This cap would limit the profit developers can make on each property to a certain percentage above the average profit margin for similar properties in the region. Any excess profits would then be used to fund local infrastructure projects and the development of new settlements.
Benefits of a Profit Cap
Fair Distribution of Wealth: By capping profits, we can ensure that the financial benefits of development are more evenly distributed, supporting community projects and infrastructure development.
Incentivizing Sustainable Development: Developers would be encouraged to focus on the quality and sustainability of their developments rather than purely on profit maximisation.
Reducing Overdevelopment: This approach would help control the pace and scale of development, preventing the overburdening of local infrastructure and services.
Implementation at EHDC
For East Hampshire District Council, implementing a profit cap could be a game-changer. It would require a policy change, potentially through the local development plan, to ensure that developers adhere to these new rules. This policy could be enforced during Section 106 negotiations, particularly for developments outside settlement boundaries and not included in the local development plan.
Challenges and Considerations
Legal and Regulatory Framework: Introducing a profit cap would require careful navigation of existing legal frameworks and potential resistance from developers.
Accurate Profit Assessment: Determining and enforcing a fair profit cap would require transparent and accurate accounting methods.
Stakeholder Engagement: Engaging with developers, community groups, and other stakeholders would be crucial to ensure broad support and effective implementation.
Conclusion
The current planning application process needs a thorough audit to ensure it serves the best interests of the community. Developers have been exploiting the loopholes and using policies like Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework to push through developments that prioritise profits over sustainable and equitable growth. By introducing a profit cap and leveraging Section 106 agreements, we can create a more balanced and fair development process that benefits all stakeholders, particularly the local communities that bear the brunt of unchecked development.
By taking these steps, East Hampshire District Council can lead the way in creating a more sustainable and equitable housing market, ensuring that development contributes positively to the community rather than simply draining its resources.
In the current state of the housing market, developers are increasingly driven by the principle of maximising profits rather than competing for customers based on the quality and sustainability of their developments. This trend is particularly evident in rural regions like Medstead, where developers are exploiting loopholes and leveraging Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to push through planning applications that would otherwise face rigorous scrutiny.
The Need for a Profit Cap Mechanism
Profit Over People:
Developers are primarily focused on maximising their profits, often at the expense of local communities. This profit-driven approach can lead to developments that strain local infrastructure, degrade the environment, and fail to meet the needs of existing residents. In many cases, developers are not competing to provide the best homes for buyers but rather to extract the most profit from the land they develop.
Impact on Local Communities:
This approach is not beneficial for the region. It drains resources from certain locations, putting undue pressure on local infrastructure and services. Communities are left to deal with increased traffic congestion, inadequate public services, and environmental degradation. For example, the rapid population growth in Medstead, which saw over a 40% increase between 2011 and 2021 due to piecemeal developments, has exacerbated these issues.
The Role of Section 106 Agreements:
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows local planning authorities to enter into agreements with developers to mitigate the impacts of new developments. However, these agreements often fall short of addressing the full range of impacts because they do not cap the profits that developers can make. Introducing a profit cap mechanism within Section 106 agreements could ensure that a fair portion of the profits generated from new developments is reinvested into local infrastructure and community benefits.
Implementing a Profit Cap Mechanism
Local Policy Development:
To implement a profit cap mechanism, local planning authorities need to develop robust policies that set clear limits on the profits that developers can make from new housing developments. This could involve comparing the minimum profit margins for similar developments in the region and setting a cap that ensures reasonable profits while directing excess profits towards community benefits.
Utilising Excess Profits:
The excess profits above the cap should be allocated in two primary ways:
Immediate Neighbourhood Impact: Covering the direct impact on the immediate neighbourhood, such as improvements to local infrastructure, schools, healthcare facilities, and other community services that will be directly affected by the new development.
Investment in New Settlements: Investing in the development of infrastructure for new settlements, ensuring that these areas are equipped with the necessary services and facilities to support sustainable growth. This could include building new roads, utilities, public transportation systems, schools, and healthcare facilities in planned new settlements.
Negotiating Enhanced Contributions:
For developments outside settlement boundaries and not included in the local development plan, local planning authorities should negotiate enhanced contributions through Section 106 agreements. These contributions should reflect the additional strain on local infrastructure and the need for sustainable development.
Ensuring Compliance with Strategic Planning Policies:
Developments outside settlement boundaries should face rigorous scrutiny to ensure compliance with strategic planning policies. Enhanced Section 106 contributions should be negotiated to mitigate the impacts of such developments, particularly those leveraging Paragraph 11 of the NPPF to justify their proposals.
Developers are currently exploiting Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, which provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This has created a window of opportunity for developers to maximize their profits by pushing through planning applications with minimal oversight. The lack of a profit cap mechanism allows developers to extract maximum profits without adequately contributing to the infrastructure and services needed to support new developments.
A Call for a Full Audit:
The planning application process requires a full audit of procedures to ensure that it serves the best interests of local communities. This audit should focus on identifying and closing loopholes that developers exploit, ensuring that all developments are sustainable and beneficial to the region.
Conclusion
The implementation of a profit cap mechanism within Section 106 agreements is crucial to ensuring that housing developments contribute fairly to local infrastructure and community needs. By introducing such a mechanism, local planning authorities can ensure that the profits generated from new developments are reinvested into the region, supporting sustainable growth and improving the quality of life for residents.
This approach aligns with the principles of sustainable development and helps manage the impacts of new housing developments on local communities. It is time to shift the focus from maximising profits to building sustainable, vibrant communities that benefit all residents.
If the court grants the injunction, it will order the local planning authority to halt the approval process or the developer to cease any development activities.
Monitor compliance with the court’s decision and take further legal action if necessary.
Key Points to Consider
Strong Evidence: The success of an injunction largely depends on the strength and credibility of your evidence.
Legal Expertise: Engaging experienced legal counsel is crucial to navigate the complexities of planning law and court procedures.
Public Support: Demonstrating widespread community opposition can bolster your case.
Timeliness: Act promptly to file the injunction before significant development activities commence
Conclusion
Filing an injunction under Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires careful preparation, strong evidence, and legal expertise. It is a serious legal action that can significantly impact the development process, ensuring that all planning policies and community interests are adequately considered.
Deadlines and Exceptional Circumstances
In the UK, the time limit for filing an injunction to challenge a planning permission decision is generally tied to the judicial review process. Judicial review is the main legal route for challenging planning permissions, and it has strict time limits:
An application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within six weeks from the date of the decision being challenged. This time limit is set out in the Civil Procedure Rules.
Even within the six-week period, the application must be made promptly. If there is any delay within this period, the court can refuse permission for the judicial review if it considers the delay unreasonable.
The grounds for challenging a planning permission through judicial review include procedural errors, legal errors, and irrationality. This means that there must be a legal reason why the planning permission should not have been granted.
Initially, a judge will review the application to determine if there is an arguable case. If permission is granted, the case will proceed to a full hearing.
If the development has already begun or significant investments have been made, the court may be less inclined to grant an injunction, even if there are grounds for a judicial review.
It’s essential to seek legal advice as soon as possible if you are considering challenging a planning decision, given the tight time frames and the complexity of the process.
Filing an injunction or seeking judicial review past the six-week deadline is generally not permissible, and courts are very strict about these time limits. The principle of “promptness” is crucial, and courts can refuse permission for judicial review if there is any delay, even within the six-week period.
However, there are some exceptional circumstances where the court might consider a late application:
If there are extraordinary reasons that prevented the application from being made on time, the court might consider it. This could include significant new evidence coming to light that was not previously available.
If there were procedural errors in the planning decision that were not apparent within the six-week period, this might be grounds for a late application. Again, this is rare and would need to be substantial.
If the planning permission involves a continuing breach of law or regulation, the court might consider an ongoing challenge. This would still typically need to be addressed promptly.
Economic Benefits: The economic benefits of the proposed development, such as job creation, increased local spending, and contributions to local infrastructure, can be significant factors in the decision-making process.
Social Benefits: The provision of housing, particularly affordable housing, and the support of local services and facilities can be crucial considerations.
Environmental Benefits: Enhancements to biodiversity, sustainable drainage systems, and the overall environmental sustainability of the development can be key factors.
High-Quality Design: Developments that are of high architectural and design quality and that contribute positively to the character of the area may be approved.
Sustainability: Proposals that include sustainable building practices, renewable energy sources, and other green technologies can be viewed favourably.
Local Needs: In some cases, developments may be approved if they meet specific local needs, such as housing for agricultural workers or the provision of community facilities.
Community Support: Demonstrated support from the local community can also be a factor, particularly if the development addresses specific local issues or needs.
Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development: According to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.
Lack of Five-Year Housing Land Supply: If a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the policies in the Local Development Plan that are most relevant to housing supply are considered out-of-date. In such cases, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is particularly relevant.
Appeal Decisions: Previous planning appeal decisions can set precedents that influence future decisions, particularly if the circumstances are similar.
Precedents: Approval of similar applications in the area or under similar circumstances can also play a role.
Isolated Homes in the Countryside: Paragraph 79 of the NPPF allows for the approval of isolated homes in the countryside under certain circumstances, such as if the development would:
Represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset.
Re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance their immediate setting.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)has specific provisions to address situations where local authorities have an outdated local development plan or are behind in delivering the required land supply.
The NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. When the local plan is outdated, this presumption is particularly significant.
Decision-Making:
For decision-making, this means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay. When there are no relevant development plan policies or the policies are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless:
The adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole.
Specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted (e.g., Green Belt, designated heritage assets).
Local planning authorities are required to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement.
If the local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the relevant policies for the supply of housing are considered out-of-date.
Housing Delivery Test:
The Housing Delivery Test measures the number of homes delivered in a local authority area against the homes required. If delivery falls below certain thresholds, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.
When a local plan is out-of-date, local authorities should continue to grant permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, considering the policies in the NPPF.
Updating Local Plans:
Local authorities are encouraged to update their plans every five years to reflect changing circumstances, such as changing housing needs and the availability of new data.
Example Scenario
Scenario: A local authority is behind on delivering its five-year housing land supply and has an outdated local development plan.
Application: A developer submits a planning application for a residential development.
Decision-Making:
The local authority must consider the presumption in favour of sustainable development due to its inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
The authority will weigh the benefits of the development (e.g., contribution to housing supply) against any potential adverse impacts.
The authority will also assess the proposal against the policies in the NPPF, including those related to environmental protection, design, and infrastructure.
Conclusion
The NPPF plays a critical role in guiding development when local authorities have outdated plans or insufficient land supply.
It ensures that sustainable development can proceed while balancing the need for housing and growth with environmental and community considerations (???).
Local authorities are encouraged to update their plans regularly to maintain control over development and align with the broader objectives of the NPPF.
Air and Water Quality considerations focus on assessing and mitigating the impacts of a proposed development on the quality of air and water resources. These considerations ensure that new developments do not negatively affect the health, safety, and well-being of residents, ecosystems, and the environment.
Design and Appearance in the context of material planning considerations refer to the aesthetic, functional, and contextual attributes of a proposed development. These considerations ensure that new developments are visually appealing, functionally appropriate, and harmoniously integrated into the existing built and natural environment.
Economic Benefits considerations focus on evaluating the positive impacts that a proposed development might have on the local, regional, or national economy. These considerations ensure that new developments contribute to economic growth, job creation, investment, and overall economic stability and prosperity.
Environmental Impact refers to the effect that a proposed development may have on the natural environment. This consideration is crucial for ensuring that new developments do not adversely affect ecosystems, biodiversity, natural resources, and the overall quality of the environment.
Flood Risk considerations focus on the potential for flooding and the adequacy of measures to prevent and mitigate flood impacts. These considerations ensure that new developments are appropriately located and designed to minimize flood risk to property, people, and the environment.
Heritage and Conservation considerations focus on the protection and enhancement of historic and culturally significant buildings, structures, landscapes, and areas. These considerations ensure that new developments respect and preserve the historical and architectural integrity of heritage assets while contributing to the area’s overall character and identity.
Infrastructure and Services considerations focus on the availability, capacity, and adequacy of essential services and facilities required to support a proposed development. This includes transportation networks, utilities, healthcare, education, and other public services necessary for the well-being and functionality of a community.
Land Use refers to the management and modification of natural environments or wilderness into built environments such as settlements and semi-natural habitats. In the context of material planning considerations, land use focuses on the suitability and appropriateness of a particular piece of land for the proposed development, considering existing zoning laws, local plans, and the broader impacts on the community and environment.
Local and National Planning Policies are critical frameworks that guide the development and use of land in a manner that promotes sustainable growth, protects the environment, and meets the needs of communities. These policies are established at different levels of government and provide specific guidelines and regulations that must be adhered to when considering planning applications.
Public Opinion refers to the views and concerns of the community, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders regarding a proposed development. When evaluating planning applications, planning authorities consider public opinion to ensure that developments are responsive to the needs and values of the community and to enhance democratic participation in the planning process.
Residential Amenity refers to the overall quality of life and comfort experienced by residents in their homes and neighbourhoods. When evaluating planning applications, authorities consider how a proposed development will impact the living conditions of nearby residents and the general ambiance of the area.
Sustainability in planning involves ensuring that developments meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This consideration encompasses a range of economic, environmental, and social factors aimed at promoting long-term ecological balance, resource efficiency, and quality of life.
Traffic and Access are critical factors in evaluating planning applications. These considerations focus on the impact a proposed development will have on the local transportation network, road safety, accessibility for all users, and the adequacy of infrastructure to support the development.
Why Understanding Material Planning Considerations is Crucial to Successfully Describing Your Objection Against a Proposed Development
Understanding material planning considerations is fundamental to effectively objecting to a proposed development for several reasons:
Planning authorities are legally bound to consider only material planning considerations when making decisions on planning applications. These considerations include factors such as local and national planning policies, environmental impact, traffic and access, and residential amenity.
An objection grounded in these considerations is more likely to be taken seriously and have an impact on the decision-making process.
A thorough understanding allows you to frame your objections in a structured manner, providing clear, evidence-based arguments.
For example, if a proposed development does not comply with local planning policies, highlighting specific policies and demonstrating non-compliance strengthens your case.
By understanding the key material planning considerations, you can identify and focus on the most critical issues that the planning authorities must address. This targeted approach ensures that your objections are relevant and impactful, addressing concerns such as traffic congestion, environmental degradation, or loss of residential amenity.
Knowledgeable objections enhance your credibility. When you reference relevant policies, environmental reports, or traffic studies, it shows that your objections are well-researched and not based on personal preference or unfounded claims.
By understanding the key material planning considerations, you can identify and focus on the most critical issues that the planning authorities must address. This credibility can influence planning officers and decision-makers.
Understanding material planning considerations enables you to effectively represent broader community concerns.
If a significant number of residents are worried about increased traffic or environmental impact, articulating these issues within the framework of material considerations ensures their voices are heard in a manner that planning authorities are obliged to consider.
